Church indulgences/absolution certificates
Posted 21 September 2010 - 11:09 PM
Here is the reference source: http://www.pravoslav...41125153738.htm
I see that a particular council in the 19th century forbids it, at least to a degree, but is there much more of an explanation as to how this could have happened, or why this was allowed even by the most holy of fathers? Strong defenders of our faith, against the heresies, and they seemed to have no qualms with not only condoning, but requesting such certificates?
I hope that, like some of St Gregory of Nyssa's writings, it's an issue of semantics and misunderstanding of translation.
Anyone wish to tackle this, or refer me to an existing thread on the topic?
Posted 21 September 2010 - 11:22 PM
Herman the Pooh
Posted 22 September 2010 - 02:22 AM
It coincides with the influence of Tzar Peter the (not-so) Great who, in his attempt to make Russia more "western" (or "modern") sent many clergy and monastics to be educated in Catholic seminaries which obviously brought a lot of Catholic influence into the Russian Church for a time.
Didn't Russians have seminaries on their own?
Posted 22 September 2010 - 04:31 PM
I would be much appreciative of any recommended texts to develop an Orthodox view of St. Nicodemus.
Edited by Michael 'Anthony' Cornett, 22 September 2010 - 04:32 PM.
Posted 22 September 2010 - 06:36 PM
Posted 24 September 2010 - 12:27 AM
As far as indulgences it was a way to make money while showing the uniates and latins that the other patriarchs can send letters of absolution and its not limited to the bishop of Rome.
Posted 24 September 2010 - 05:11 AM
Posted 24 September 2010 - 03:36 PM
Posted 11 September 2012 - 04:28 AM
Posted 11 September 2012 - 09:32 AM
We've discussed this elsewhere. Merely claiming to be "infallible" basically means nothing. You do not need to be "infallible" to be correct, you merely need to be correct. That is why the one of the first acts of an Ecumenical Council was to affirm the proceedings of the preceding council. Why would this be necessary if the council was already assumed to be infallible? And what of the robber councils?
I believe that the Justinian Council pronounced that its pronouncements were infallible, and I think that is true as applying to all of the councils now.
While there was some discussion in the 7th and 8th centuries that the five councils that had occurred up to that point constituted a type of infallibility, I don't believe that the council declared itself infallible.
The concept of "infallibility" destroys free will. Infallibility is a fallacy when applied directly to humans.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users